How does a law that protects children from severe injury oppress fathers?

What Steve probably didn't realise that this law was passed to protect children under the age of 12 from being suffocated by the 'air bags' which are fitted to most new cars. It actually was nothing to do with Feminism, but passed by 'Road Safety Groups'.

Poor Steve, I think one day he'll meet the 'person' of his dreams and maybe even have children and possibly be a great father that sticks around to watch them grow into well adjusted adults! You never know!

Since women still do the majority of child care and toting them around, how in the world would this oppress fathers?

This is just the reaction of an angry (white? most likely) man whining about responsibility.

He's probably a person who thinks VAWA discriminates against men too. This funding goes to domestic violence, rape and stalking - whether the victims are male or female. BUT just ask him WHO gets FATHERHOOD grants. We had a battered woman (living in her car) seek care from an agency getting a fatherhood grant and she was turned away.

And, note to the above poster, men make more false allegations than men in family court (see: Bala & Schumann) -yet stereotypes have more branding power than mere facts. Moreover, they use junk science like PAS to counter allegations of child and child sexual abuse. And, have more resources to hire lawyers. Women - particularly battered women - are royally screwed over in family court.(see Katie Tagles case as an example of what women go thru). Often the biggest protesters of family court are the abusers themselves. Those with charges and convictions, like Lee Doyle, for example.

It doesn't, because it doesn't apply only to men. I see nothing oppressive about it, either. Air bags are a fact of life and we know they can injure children. So can safety belts if the child isn't in a booster seat. As for vehicles with no rear seat like sports cars and pickup trucks, there should be an air bag cutoff switch for when you have to carry a child. Read the manual.

Cops have the ability to triage a situation and determine when and if to take action. So technically, no, they do not have a specific obligation to help or defend you. That being said, it has been my experience that most cops become cops, because they feel a moral obligation to serve their communities that goes above and beyond what various laws say. Although there have been a few officers that have tarnished the reputation of cops over the years, they are good people and will do what they can to stop the threat.

Why would you have a child in the front seat of the car? They can easily be crushed by the air bag. It's not oppression, it's trying to protect a child's life.

I have no idea. That question doesn't even make sense. How does putting your small child in the backseat, where it's safer, oppress father in any way?

Well, the law seems a bit exaggerated to me, but it is just symptom of modern neurosis about safety, it hardly seems to me oppressive of men. It's just as likely to inconvenience a woman, if she has a lot of children and hasn't got room for all of them in the back.

i don't see that as being a feminism law that oppresses fathers..but i do think the government is way too intrusive on these matters. we face dangers everyday, it is not the governments role to protect us as little children from all that goes bump in the night, and as parents, we should be in charge of of determining what things we deem as safe or unsafe for our children.....for the most part.

It beggars belief. Especially as I was rather vocal in condemnation of a mother who did just this - drove her kids to school, without a safety belt, in the front seat of a car.

I guess those fathers who have left their families and gone out and bought themselves a brand new 2 seater sports car will have to think again ... yes, very oppressive.